BPL 25

Leiden UB BPL 25

Date: 10th century (Gumbert, IIMM)

Place of origin: France, probably Brittany (Gumbert, IIMM)

Parchment manuscript, 43 folia, 325 x 225 mm, Carolingian minuscule, Latin.

Contents: This manuscript contains Boethius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione (f. 2-38) and Apuleius’ De Interpretatione (f. 38-41). F. 1, 42 and 43 are unrelated fragments from a missal from the second half of the ninth century (Gumbert, IIMM).

Special features: The texts in this codex are core texts for the art of dialectic. In this book, they are not laid out to receive a commentary or glosses: the margins and interlinear spaces are relatively narrow and are not prepared for extra lines of text or comments. Yet later hands did work with the text, underlining passages and marking them with notes and faces, drawing attention to their content.

At the front and back of this manuscript are loose leaves, fragments that once belonged to a different manuscript. They contain chants from a missal, their melodies written down with delicate neumes, the earliest form of musical notation. The neumes give the contours of the melody: its rise and fall. It is, however, not precise enough to allow a full reconstruction.

[[[25cover.jpg]]

Aristotle’s Organon and Boethius’ translations and commentaries

Aristotle’s De interpretatione (Greek Peri hermeneias, Eng On interpretation) is one of Aristotle’s five works on logic known as the Organon (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/). In these works, Aristotle shows how logic is the basic instrument (organon) to come to an understanding of anything and everything. He describes a system of formal rules for correct reasoning, following the basic principles of the logic that result from expressing observations in language. Expressions of observations, such as ‘man is mortal’, are at the basis of a system of analysis. Combinations of observations are put into relation with each other to determine the truth or falsity of an argument. For example: if ‘all men are mortal’ is true, and ‘Socrates is a man’ is true, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal is inevitable. Boethius (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boethius/), who had had a thorough Greek education, had the ambition to translate all of the Greek learning of his time into Latin. He produced translations and commentaries on the Categories, on On Interpretation and on the Isagoge (‘Introduction’) by Porphyry. He also composed logical text-books on division and syllogisms. His works are key for the transmission of Greek learning into the Latin Middle Ages.

[[[Aristotle.jpg]]]

F. 1v-2r: Opening of Boethius’ translation of and commentary on Aristotle’s On interpretation (De interpretatione, Peri hermeneias) on the right; on the left an earlier fragment of a missal with musical notation. The page is quite dirty: a sign that the book may have been without a cover for some time, with this page exposed. We can also see that the dirt of the fragment on the right does not match the dirt on the left: these two components were, when put together in one binding, already dirty.

In close-up, the dirt and wear and tear on the page are even more visible. We can also see that a later hand wrote the title of the work on the top of the page: ‘Aristotelis liber i peri er[meneias] a boecio comentatus expositusque’ (see green box) (The first book of Aritotle’s Peri hermeneias, commented upon and expounded by Boethius). In the red box you can see the Greek title of Aristotle’s work, Peri Hermeneias. It is written in Greek capitals. A line over the words emphasizes the fact that it is Greek.

The translation and commentary of Boethius are set up as a dialogue, with a quote from Aristotle as a starter for an explanation from Boethius. In order to make the structure of the text clear, S-shaped signs (see green box) in the margin mark the lines that are quotes from Aristotle. A later hand also underlined them to make it even more apparent.

In this close-up we can see how the text has been structured as a dialogue between Aristotle, here indicated with the label ‘HYSTORIA’, and BOETHIUS (see green boxes). The words of Aristotle are further marked in the margin with ‘PRIN’[CIPIUM or –CIPALIS, beginning or original], and with S-signs (see red boxes) to mark a quotation. Finally, the later hand that added some notes, also added faces to mark the places that he found noteworthy for some reason (see yellow boxes).

On f.12r we find a classic ‘square of opposition’. It illustrates relations between statements. So on top you have general statements:

AFFIRMATIO UNIVERSALIS (example: Every man is just) versus NEGATIO UNIVERSALIS (Example: No man is just).

On the bottom are particular statements:

AFFIRMATIO PARTICULARIS (example: A certain man is just) versus NEGATIO PARTICULARIS (example: A certain man is not just.)

The diagonal lines point out the contradictory statements:

‘Every man is just’ is contradictory to ‘A certain man is not just’;

And ‘No man is just’ is contradictory to ‘A certain man is just’.

[[[2512r.jpg]]]

Similar schemes with affirmations versus negations and with resulting contradictions are found in the margins, for example here in the lower and upper margins of f. 30v-32r.

This close-up of f. 42r, the fragment of a missal from the second half of the ninth century, shows you the detail and delicacy of the musical notation, the neumes. Long melodies were fitted over, for example, the alleluias (see green boxes) in the text, as one can tell from the multitude of signs crowding the space above the words.